【研报精选】比特币ETF和信托区别是什么?美SEC为何迟迟不批现货BTC ETF

火币成长学院Опубликовано 2023-06-30Обновлено 2026-06-04

Введение

ETF通过实物担保的形式可将特定资产证券化,投资者仅需购买该机构所发行的基金份额,即可间接持有相应投资标的的敞口,目前还没有真正的比特币现货 ETF。

摘要

ETF通过实物担保的形式可将特定资产证券化,投资者仅需购买该机构所发行的基金份额,即可间接持有相应投资标的的敞口,目前还没有真正的比特币现货 ETF。

投资信托是在证券交易所上市的封闭式投资基金,GBTC作为加密市场最主要的比特币信托产品,其基金结构是公司式的,可用的股票数量有限,它们的供求在很大程度上决定了它们的价格。

ETF 和投资信托的主要区别之一是它们的结构:ETF 是开放式的(允许做市商随意创建和赎回股票),投资信托则是封闭式(容易创建,也没有积极的赎回计划)。此外,ETF 可以在整个交易日在证券交易所买卖,就像单个股票一样。

美国SEC对于比特币ETF的申请多次拒绝,不过美国SEC在早期和近期拒绝理由却也不大相同。早期主要在于比特币的定性问题,近期则主要顾虑比特币操纵问题;而现货市场未根据美国联邦监管制度获得许可,也是美SEC迟迟推迟比特币ETF通过的主要原因。

如果贝莱德的申请获批,GBTC 可能被迫引入每日赎回来竞争;GBTC 可能被迫削减费用;许多华尔街公司可能会推出快速跟进产品来复制贝莱德。

什么是比特币ETF?

交易型开放式指数基金(exchange-traded funds,ETF)通过实物担保的形式可将特定资产证券化,投资者仅需购买该机构所发行的基金份额,即可间接持有相应投资标的的敞口。其最早由领航投资创办人约翰·柏格发明,他发行了世界上第一支也是至今仍闻名遐迩的指数 ETF——标准普尔 500 指数 ETF。通常情况下,ETF类似于共同基金,因为它是由发行人共同管理的,旨在跟踪特定市场指数、部门或资产的表现;当投资者购买 ETF 时,他们购买的是股票、债券或商品等资产基础投资组合中的股份。投资 ETF 的好处之一是,它们可以轻松获得多样化的一揽子证券;与其他类型的投资工具相比,ETF 的成本通常也很低。

在传统金融体系中,ETF 是极为重要的一个组成部分;因为当商品能够以 ETF 的形式出现,意味着商品在当地的合规与成熟。比特币 ETF 作为跟踪比特币价格的资产,无需经过购买比特币的过程,如注册交易平台和通过各种验证,通过投资比特币 ETF,用户可以从比特币的涨幅中获利。首个比特币 ETF 为期货 ETF,ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF(BITO);目前还没有真正的比特币现货 ETF。

什么是比特币信托?

投资信托是在证券交易所上市的封闭式投资基金。这些信托由一名专业基金经理管理,该经理负责投资信托中持有的资金。基金经理将用这笔钱购买股票、债券或财产等资产组合。投资信托的股票价格由信托中持有的资产的价值决定。在加密领域,灰度的 GBTC 信托基金是最主要的比特币信托产品,投资该信托基金的结构是公司式的——至少在监管形式上是这样——属于「封闭式基金」;因此,可用的股票数量有限,它们的供求在很大程度上决定了它们的价格。

除灰度信托外,市场上还存在着其他替代品。早在 2017 年,法国 Tobam 发行了全球首支 BTC 共同基金。同年,瑞士的 Swissquote Group 就曾推出 BTC 证书 ETP 产品,并于瑞士最大证券交易所 Six Swiss 上市。此后,德国、瑞典、奥地利等国相继发行了 Crypto ETP 产品。与灰度信托劣势相同,这些产品也仅能满足 ETF 的部分功能——ETP 本质为债券,并不能被纳入基金的监管框架内。

比特币ETF和比特币信托有哪些不同?

ETF 和投资信托的主要区别之一是它们的结构。ETF 是开放式的,这意味着可用的股票数量可以根据需求增加或减少。而投资信托则是封闭式,这意味着有固定数量的股票可用。比如,灰度的GBTC股票不容易创建,也没有积极的赎回计划。这往往会与其净资产价值产生明显的价格差异。与之对比,ETF 则允许做市商随意创建和赎回股票。因此,如果有足够的流动性,通常不会出现溢价或折价的情况。ETF 工具更容易被共同基金和养老基金接受,因为它比 GBTC 这样的封闭式信托基金承担的风险要少得多。

此外,ETF 可以在整个交易日在证券交易所买卖,就像单个股票一样。然而,投资信托每天只在交易日结束时交易一次。同时,ETF 和投资信托的成本结构是不同的。ETF 的成本通常低于投资信托,因为它们旨在跟踪指数,并且需要较少的积极管理。另一方面,投资信托是积极管理的,因此可能会有更高的费用。

比特币ETF为何屡遭美国SEC拒绝?

比特币 ETF 的发展可谓道路曲折,美国SEC对于比特币ETF的申请也是多次拒绝,不过美国SEC在早期和近期拒绝理由却也不大相同。

早期美国SEC拒绝比特币ETF申请的理由,主要是因为定性问题。当时,美国SEC认为加密资产既非证券,亦非金融衍生品,作为一种非实物商品的 BTC 理论上不受美国证券交易委员会和商品期货交易委员会(Commodity Futures Trading Commission)的监管,这也是早前 BTC ETF 频遭拒绝的主要原因之一。

伴随其他国家不断退出比特币ETF,美国SEC改变态度推出比特币期货ETF。2021年2 月,加拿大审批通过了世界首支 BTC ETF——Purpose BTC ETF;在 BTC ETF 发行仅两个月后,三支 ETH ETF 也获准上市,分别为:Purpose Investment 推出的 Purpose Ether ETF(ETHH)、CI 全球资本管理公司推出的 CI Galaxy Ethereum ETF(ETHX)以及 Evolve 资本集团推出的的 Evolve Ether ETF(ETHR)。SEC通过期货ETF,这意味SEC将比特币正式纳入监管范围,而且美SEC还与CFTC也展开对比特币等加密资产的监管权竞争,不过比特币现货ETF却被SEC一直拒绝。

2021年11月12日,SEC拒绝了VanEck的比特币现货ETF申请,其中罗列了七大理由:1. 刷量交易;2. 巨鲸用户操纵币价;3. 比特币网络和交易网站遭黑客攻击;4. 比特币网络被恶意控制;5. 基于(包括虚假信息在内的)非公开信息进行的内幕交易;6. 由Tether之类的稳定币对于币价进行的操纵;7. 比特币交易平台对币价进行的欺诈和操纵。

但事实上,SEC对交易量和流动性担忧并不是主要原因,许多公司债券 ETF(例如 HYG)等,其成分股的交易中位数为每天个位数。SEC 广泛拒绝现货 ETF,主要原因可能在于现货市场未根据美国联邦监管制度获得许可,这主要面临以下三种情况:EWJ(iShares MSCI Japan)等 ETF 包含受非美国司法管辖区监管的金融工具。比特币在许多非美国司法管辖区受到监管,并在非美国司法管辖区的受监管交易所进行交易;HYG(iShares 高收益公司债券)等 ETF 包含不在任何许可交易所交易的债务工具;FXE(Invesco Euro Trust)等 ETF 包含法定货币,没有市场监管机构。

比特币现货ETF申请有哪些不同路径?

传统ETF申请模式:这类申请基本和常规的ETF差不多。早在 2013 年,文克莱沃斯兄弟就宣布即将推出 BTC ETF。2014 年,该 ETF 在递交申请后遭到 SEC 否决。此后,文克莱沃斯兄弟又曾尝试变更交易场所、设立地点等多种方式企图设立 BTC ETF,在多年中申请了数次,但都未获成功,至今该计划仍在搁浅中。2016 年,SolidX 申请比特 ETF 遭到拒绝;2017年,机构向SEC申请比特币ETF的热情高涨,一年之内多达六家,包括 BTC Investment Trust、 VanEck, Exchange Listed Funds Trust、Pro Shares、REX BTC、First Trust等。2018 年新增了两家GraniteShares和Direxion ;另外,VanEck 和 SolidX 还联合申请了一支 ETF。结果无一例外,都是无果而终。

比特币信托产品转比特币现货ETF:这其中主要代表就是灰度的GBTC,灰度去年 10 月通过 NYSE Arca 向美国 SEC 提交了将 GBTC 转换为比特币现货 ETF 的申请。SEC 拒绝灰度(Grayscale)将其 GBTC 转换为比特币现货 ETF 的申请,并表示,申请未能回答美国证券交易委员会关于防止欺诈和操纵行为以及其他担忧的问题。

另类结构比特币ETF:其中最为出名的就是近期贝莱德申请的另类结构ETF。这类ETF更像是 GLD 和贝莱德旗下安硕(iShares)管理的多支知名 ETF 基金,和 Grayscale 发行的 GBTC 这类信托基金相比,它更加灵活,可供赎回。但因为它没有 ETF 所具备的每日赎回机制,它将以每篮 40, 000 枚比特币的形式从该信托中添加和赎回,这会使得它产生与 Grayscale Bitcoin 信托基金类似的资产净值溢价和折价问题。

现货比特币ETF通过将如何影响加密市场?

近期贝莱德申请的另类比特币ETF市场关注度很高。Pomp Investments 投资人 Anthony Pompliano 认为:如果贝莱德的申请获批,这对投资者来说是一个巨大的胜利;GBTC 可能被迫引入每日赎回来竞争;GBTC 可能被迫削减费用;许多华尔街公司可能会推出快速跟进产品来复制贝莱德;媒体的关注可能会导致比特币流入。

对于贝莱德申请的另类比特币ETF也有人认为这仍然是信托产品,虽然有赎回机制,但流动性相对传统意义上的ETF还是较低,这还不能充分发挥ETF 费用低廉、日内流动性高等独特优势。美国拥有世界上最大的 ETF 市场,其规模在 2020 年占到占全球资产管理总额 (AUM) 的近 75%(约为 5.6 万亿美元)。一旦现货BTC ETF通过,那么比特币就将在美国这个巨大的市场中,获得众多传统机构投资者、以及担心法律风险或“嫌麻烦”的散户投资者青睐,这无疑将大大促进比特币长足发展。

Похожее

Fei-Fei Li's Team Clarifies the Concept of 'World Models', Sora Merely a Renderer

"World Models" has become a widely used yet confusing term in AI. To address this, a team led by Fei-Fei Li and World Labs proposed a functional taxonomy based on the Partially Observable Markov Decision Process framework. This taxonomy categorizes systems called "world models" into three distinct projections: Renderers, Simulators, and Planners. Renderers, like OpenAI's Sora and other video generation models, focus on producing photorealistic visual outputs for human perception. They prioritize visual fidelity over physical accuracy. Simulators, such as NVIDIA Omniverse, aim to compute precise future environmental states for computational tasks like engineering analysis or digital twins. Planners, like Vision-Language-Action models, take in observations and goals to output executable actions for robots or agents. The article clarifies that most current "world models," including Sora, are primarily Renderers. They generate convincing visuals but lack the core ability to simulate state transitions based on actions, a key requirement for a true world model in classic reinforcement learning definitions. This conceptual confusion has practical implications, leading to potential misalignment in technology selection, investment, and public understanding of AI capabilities. Clear categorization is crucial. It helps enterprises avoid costly mistakes (e.g., using a renderer for robot training), allows investors to accurately assess markets, and enables researchers to build comparable benchmarks. While future systems may integrate these functions, recognizing current boundaries is essential for honest assessment and progress.

marsbit15 мин. назад

Fei-Fei Li's Team Clarifies the Concept of 'World Models', Sora Merely a Renderer

marsbit15 мин. назад

Bloomberg Uncovered: How Do China's Wealthy Circumvent the Annual $50,000 Limit to Transfer Assets?

**Summary: How Wealthy Chinese Circumvent $50,000 Annual Foreign Exchange Limits** Despite China's strict capital controls, including an annual $50,000 per person foreign exchange quota, an estimated $150 billion in funds still leaves the country annually via various gray and underground channels. This report outlines the evolution of China's "capital wall" and the methods used to bypass it. **The Evolving Capital Controls:** * **Foundation (1994):** The system of "current account convertibility with strict capital account controls" was established. * **Quota Set (2007):** The $50,000 individual annual forex purchase limit was formalized. * **Crackdown Begins (2015-2017):** Following market volatility, enforcement tightened. Banks were required to scrutinize transactions, and channels like using UnionPay cards for Hong Kong insurance premiums or buying overseas property were blocked. * **Digital & Legal Upgrades (2024-2026):** Enhanced algorithms now flag suspicious patterns (e.g., "smurfing"). The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) provides Chinese tax authorities with data on citizens' offshore accounts. Unlicensed cross-border brokers have been targeted. **Five Primary Methods for Moving Capital:** 1. **Underground Banking / "Hawala" (Duiqiao):** The largest-scale method. No money crosses borders. Clients pay RMB to a domestic account; an overseas associate deposits equivalent foreign currency into the client's offshore account. Risks include high fees, account freezes, and legal penalties. 2. **"Smurfing" or "Ant Moving":** Using multiple individuals' $50,000 quotas to pool funds for one offshore recipient. Increasingly detected by anti-money laundering algorithms. 3. **Trade Invoice Manipulation:** Businesses over-invoice imports or under-invoice exports via offshore shell companies, creating a pretext to transfer excess funds abroad under the guise of trade. 4. **Channel Migration:** After a crackdown on internet brokers, funds flow toward more compliant but costly channels like major banks' cross-border wealth management services or Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) quotas. 5. **Structural Arrangements:** High-net-worth individuals use complex, high-cost legal structures involving offshore trusts, insurance, and investment migration programs to transfer asset ownership. **Regulatory Response: Focusing on People, Not Just Money** The current strategy extends oversight from enterprises to **individual residents**. Tools like CRS allow retroactive visibility into offshore assets. Cryptocurrencies, once seen as a potential loophole, are now actively monitored and prosecuted as an illegal channel. The underlying driver remains: with significant wealth concentrated among millions of affluent households seeking diversification amid domestic economic shifts, the incentive to move assets offshore persists despite regulatory barriers.

marsbit34 мин. назад

Bloomberg Uncovered: How Do China's Wealthy Circumvent the Annual $50,000 Limit to Transfer Assets?

marsbit34 мин. назад

Ethereum's Ballmer Moment: As Everyone Is Bearish, the Circulating Supply Is Disappearing

"Ethereum's Ballmer Moment: Circulation Shrinks Amid Bearish Sentiment" Amid widespread bearish sentiment, with prominent figures like Bankless founder David Hoffman selling ETH and young developers flocking to Solana, some argue Ethereum is entering its "Ballmer era"—akin to Microsoft's perceived stagnation under Steve Ballmer. While surface-level criticisms about slow protocol development, cautious leadership, and competitive pressure are valid, underlying fundamentals tell a different story. Approximately 30% of ETH is staked, major holders like BitMine are accumulating, and spot ETFs continue to absorb supply. Regulatory clarity, including the SEC/CFTC's March ruling on staking rewards and the potential passage of the CLARITY Act, is transforming crypto from a regulatory threat into a legitimized framework. This institutionalization, alongside a shrinking circulating supply (with net issuance around 0.23% annually), creates significant buy-side pressure independent of fee-based value capture. The broader crypto total addressable market is expanding through regulated stablecoins, tokenized assets, and institutional adoption. While public chains face competition from permissioned alternatives, the winning model appears to be permissioned assets settling on public chains like Ethereum and Solana. The author advocates a non-maximalist, barbell strategy: holding ETH for its institutional role and supply squeeze, SOL for consumer/throughput trends, BTC as a macro hedge, and a basket of next-gen L1s. Key bullish drivers for ETH include rapid circulation shrinkage, potential Q2 staked ETF approvals, regulatory tailwinds solidifying its role as a default settlement layer, and the optionality of an eventual "Satya moment" leadership shift. Despite bearish consensus, the current setup—where crypto is "not hot" and regulatory groundwork is being laid—presents a compelling investment opportunity. The crypto cycle's focus may have shifted to AI, but blockchain infrastructure is gaining a legal and institutional foothold precisely while attention is elsewhere.

marsbit34 мин. назад

Ethereum's Ballmer Moment: As Everyone Is Bearish, the Circulating Supply Is Disappearing

marsbit34 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片